MovieChat Forums > Free Birds (2013) Discussion > Go Vegan!

Go Vegan!

posted 10 years ago by StarshineTwinkle
62 replies | jump to latest

Eating animals is very cruel, your personal choice is not personal as it means they die plus eating animal flesh and fluids causes heart disease, cancer, strokes etc

And no you are not carnivore, you're not even omnivore, biologically we ahve more in common with herbivores....

Eating animal flesh is very outdates and drinking cows milk, yuck, you are not a baby and you are not a calf! Calves die because you steal their mothers milk!

Everyone has a right to twinkle & shine like a star

[–] benman46 10 years ago

What a lot of uninformed garbage!! Why is your personal choice not personal? What else is it? Saying eating animal flesh causes heart disease etc. is a sweeping generalistion. How is eating lean meat going to cause heart disease? We are omnivores, we have incisors or canine teeth, what does that tell you? They are certainly not there to eat celery. Saying we have more in common with herbivores is laughable.

Since when is eating meat outdated?? Drinking milk is healthy as it contains calcium, protein and essential vitamins. Calves don't die because we steal their mothers milk.

I haven't read such fvcking rubbish in a long time. Next time do some research before you post again. And lay off the drugs they've addled your brain.

[–] unclesporkums2 10 years ago

Amen! Well said!

---------------------------------------
Get out of the WHEY! - Dr.Cheese (Santa Barbara,1987)

[–] Uberlim 10 years ago

What a lot of formed garbage !!! People are fooled into thinking things are personal every other day of the weak!
Saying eating animal flesh causes heart diseases & many of them is a strong true statement known & proved.
If we are omnivores, which really is a fallacious term, then why is there hunger in the 1st world?
We have teeth, yeah yippy yay. Drinking milk is less healthy than eating expensive cheese on a non day 2 day basis.
Calves die because dumb noobs can't make a farm prosper.

Such freakin' idiocy comin from such a heck of a man talking to a lady is what you get trying to find truth in all the wrong places. & your brain, what addled it? age?

[–] benman46 10 years ago

You're taking the piss right? I hope.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Uberlim 10 years ago

dude bro, just listen 2 urself. (figurative meaning de preferentia).

i trust in u, others can't help u, now i posses ur spirit, & i'm flushin it down the toilets noislessly. what about dat? (litteral meaning, like where cats poop.)

nethin' 2 add?

[–] Danae_G 10 years ago

Alright buddy. Of course it's your personal choice whether or not you want to be vegan or not. That doesn't mean your personal choice is best for the environment or for your health.

Here's a good hypothetical situation. Meat-eaters have an in-born instinct to hunt and kill. Humans do not. I encourage you to place a one-year-old child into a crib with a bunny and a plate of fruit. If the child rips the bunny to pieces and eats its raw flesh, eyes, organs, skin, blood and all, and plays with the fruit, then I suppose your point is proven. If the child eats the fruit and plays with the bunny - well, there's your answer.

Even if we are able to consume meat (so long as it's properly cooked and seasoned, we all know uncooked and unseasoned meat can make us sick - I wonder why that is) we don't need to. It's not necessary. There are so many alternatives available these days that meat could be left out of our diets completely and we'd still get every single nutrient we need. Vegans don't just eat celery. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lP7x8HS4ixQ/TrMvl66nd8I/AAAAAAAAAM8/ZNUfeiHdZ_c/s1600/the-vegan-food-pyramid.jpg

Drinking milk is not healthy. Why do you think we are weaned from drinking milk in our early lives? No other animal on this earth drinks milk once they have left their childhood, and people will look down upon anybody who breastfeeds their child past age three or four. No other animal on this earth steals milk from another species. Why do you think so many people in the world are lactose intolerant? Do you really think it is natural to drink milk that is meant for somebody else's baby? And yes, calves do indeed die because we steal their mother's milk. Do you think it would be profitable for a dairy farmer to spend money on raising a male calf that can't produce milk? No. So, when a cow that is forcefully inseminated in order to produce milk gives birth to a male calf, that calf is either immediately killed or given away to be slaughtered at a veal farm. Mother cows are given no time at all to spend with their babies before they are taken away. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWM5jYORSDg

So yeah, take your own advice and do some damn research.

[–] benman46 10 years ago

Another post of uninformed rubbish. You should do some damn research. Milk is not good for you, since when? All male calves are killed or slaughtered, where do you think bulls come from. Does a cow have a sex change? Laughable.

[–] Danae_G 10 years ago

Another post of uninformed rubbish. You should do some damn research. Milk is not good for you, since when? All male calves are killed or slaughtered, where do you think bulls come from. Does a cow have a sex change? Laughable.

Start backing up your claims and maybe I'd consider your argument reputable. There is tonnes of footage out there that backs up all of my claims, including what I linked you to. I never said that ALL male calves are slaughtered, I said that almost all male calves on dairy farms are because they are not profitable for dairy farmers. Other farmers may raise bulls to collect their sperm for use in artificial insemination or for beef. Male calves produced by the dairy industry are known as "bobby calves."

http://kb.rspca.org.au/What-happens-to-bobby-calves_87.html
http://www.animalsaustralia.org/issues/dairy.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calf (Terminology section)

Definition of a Bobby Calf (as per the LTS)
A calf not accompanied by its mother, less than 30 days old, weighing less than 80 kg live weight, and usually a dairy breed or dairy cross.

Cow's milk has never been good for you, just as breast milk is not necessary past toddler-hood. How could you possibly believe that it is perfectly normal for one species to steal milk from somebody else's mother, not to mention a mother from a totally different species!

http://saveourbones.com/osteoporosis-milk-myth/
http://life.nationalpost.com/2014/01/23/drinking-milk-not-essential-for-humans-despite-belief-it-prevents-osteoporosis-nutritionist-says/
http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/food-nutrition/facts/is-milk-good-for-you.htm
http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/food-nutrition/facts/environmental-health-reasons-dairy.htm

"Dairy is one of the most commonly reported food allergies [Source: Rona, Nowak-Wegrzyn]. Even when not seen as a specific allergy, milk is frequently not tolerated by the gastrointestinal tract [Source: Nowak-Wegrzyn]. This is a problem that can extend beyond lactose intolerance. For many, milk can cause bloating, constipation and even reflux. Clinically, milk may also be linked to increased eczema, worsening sinus problems, migraine headaches and joint pain [Source: Grant]. Milk is considered a mucus-producing food and is clinically thought to aggravate congestion. One Johns Hopkins physician, Dr. Frank Oski, has even written a book that shares his experiences of decreased rates of strep throat infection once children removed milk from their diets [Source: Oski]. Often, these conditions resolve or improve when milk is removed or eliminated from the diet."

"The Harvard University expert on nutrition says it’s not essential that we have any dairy at all.

“Most of the world does not consume dairy products and (yet) they grow up and become faculty members at Harvard, too,” says Willett, who will be in Toronto and Montreal next week to receive the 2013 Bloomberg Manulife Prize for Promotion of Active Health, a $50,000 research grant administered by McGill University and awarded annually to an academic whose work has the power to make “real and lasting change to the lives of North Americans.”"

“The countries with the highest rates of osteoporosis are the ones where people drink the most milk and have the most calcium in their diets. The connection between calcium consumption and bone health is actually very weak, and the connection between dairy consumption and bone health is almost nonexistent.”

"The biochemical make-up of cow's milk is perfectly suited to turn a 65-pound newborn calf into a 400-pound cow in one year. It contains, for example, three times more protein and seven times more mineral content while human milk has 10 times as much essential fatty acids, three times as much selenium, and half the calcium. Some may like cow's milk but drinking it is both unnecessary and potentially harmful."

So yeah, there's the research you asked for. Where does your information about milk come from? Milk companies advertising on television?

Another video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYJPbrxdn8w

You also provided no response to my child/rabbit analogy, I'd like to know what you think about that.

[–] benman46 10 years ago

LMAO.

[–] Danae_G 10 years ago

LMAO.

Thanks for proving your ignorance. When presented with facts, all you can do is type a four-letter acronym reinstating just how uneducated you are.

[–] benman46 10 years ago

It's just I thought your posts were so laughably inaccurate I had to stop reading or my sides would have split. I am now going to have a roast beef sandwich and a glass of milk, I shall think of you while I eat them. Peace out.

[–] Danae_G 10 years ago

It's just I thought your posts were so laughably inaccurate I had to stop reading or my sides would have split. I am now going to have a roast beef sandwich and a glass of milk, I shall think of you while I eat them. Peace out.

You've yet to back up anything you've said with even the tiniest ounce of evidence, so your posts are completely redundant. I have posted nothing but proven fact. Enjoy your disgusting roasted corpse and glass of pus-filled breast secretions stolen from the mother of a slaughtered child. Peace indeed.

[–] benman46 10 years ago

This is all relevant to Free Birds how? The roast beef sandwich and milk were lovely by the way.

[–] Danae_G 10 years ago

Your original comment had nothing to do with Free Birds. And consuming dead bodies and breast secretions from somebody else's mother aren't things I would suggest bragging about.

[–] melinda2001 10 years ago

He's just baiting you. Personally, I'd separate the health issues from the moral ones. To make this relevant to Free Birds, it's better to stick to the moral issues. Eating meat causing suffering, whether it's natural to or not. If someone wants to use evolution as justification, then we should be eating mostly plants but also a fair amount of grubs, small lizards and such. I suggest we leave evolution out of this and have a frank discussion of the moral issues; but not here of course because nothing's ever settled here.

[–] Augustus_Octavian 8 years ago

Just want to support you that he is a gutless coward. No balls to confront you.

That said, you are wrong about the science though. Veganism is a risky diet from a science point of view. A healthy well-balanced diet is best.

[–] Augustus_Octavian 8 years ago

What a load of crap. It is the scientific consensus that we are meat eaters. Lol at you imposing your own "test" for determining whether humans are naturally meat eaters.

Medical science definitively states that veganism is potentially unhealthy without assistance from medical technology. You are not advocating for vegetarianism here, but veganism which is way more risky.

As per science, a healthy well-balanced diet is best.

[–] PopSixSquish 10 years ago

I'm with you, for the most part.

Why is it not just a personal choice? How about because another being's life is what's in question?!? A being who sadly can't speak up for its own rights, but doesn't NEED to die for your sake, because you're not going to die without its flesh? For Pete's sake, you're not talking about your choice of movie to watch, pants to wear, or curtains to buy. :P And it's not a matter of mildly disturbing or inconveniencing an animal; it's taking their entire lives, wiping them out. If I had to be preyed upon, I'd rather it be a creature seeking necessary sustenance than one that merely likes the flavor.
I believe the vast majority of humans would be better off as herbivores. (Or at least, omnivores weighted heavily toward the plant side.) They *can* eat animal products, but could do just as well, if not better, with plant-derived ones. The benefits to other creatures and the planet as a whole make that idea even more compelling. I do wish that meat-eating weren't so absolutely entrenched and commonplace, but thankfully it's becoming easier and easier to avoid.
(And really, if you step back and look at it for a second, how BIZARRE is it that we steal the milk of another mammal, which exists to feed their young...but frequently feed our own young artificially made formulas?! Humans think nothing of drinking that which is squeezed from a cow's udder, yet make a big deal over breastfeeding and human breasts and nipples, which also exist for one purpose--to feed babies. We are one incredibly weird species.)

"If you don't have anything nice to say...come sit by me!"

[–] smustain05 10 years ago

Alyssa is not someone to agree with. She's been on-record stating that she hopes people choke, spews vile insults and routinely calls for people's injury if she doesn't like what they say. She relishes She even was delighted at coming up with the idea of putting a human in a lion cage and watching the lion maim the person. She's as radical as as any ALF bomber. She does NOT practice being kind to all animals (since, well people are animals). It would be wise to distance yourself from her.

Your home was once a habitat for animals; thus animals were killed for your comfort. Your electricity has cost numerous animal lives...same goes to your Internet. Many of the farmlands where you crops were grown have the blood of animals on them as they were once forests. Statistically speaking, the fact that you live has directly cost the life of at least one animal. At current human population rates, even vegan diets are not sustainable due to already passing the high-water mark to the amount of land for crop arability..even worse if we don't clear-cut more forests.

The reality is that most of lives of these animals are born and raised for food; thus they are useful to us.Nature doesn't care about 'useful', and if all cattle were set into the wild they would easily become extinct. Technology is to the point where we have created completely synthetic tissue. Once we can synthetically generate beef, pork, chicken or whatever at a cost-effective solution, then only the land at which these animals graze will be useful (given that livestock and be raised on less arable land not all land would be suitable for farming). Every single domesticated farm animal is as good as extinct or at least endangered when that happens.

You hold a purely idealized look on what it means to be a predator in nature. Predators not only kill prey for sustenance, they also kill prey for simply wandering into their territory or too close a home. They also kill if it feels threatened. They kill for dominance, they kill for sport, and they kill for pride.

[–] PopSixSquish 10 years ago

Well, I'll assume that she didn't literally mean most of that...it's easy to SAY such extreme things, but I doubt she'd actually choke someone or whatever for disagreeing with her...then again, how would I know? If she was serious, I stand corrected. xD Not that I take issue with giving cruel people a taste of their own medicine, but if we all went around siccing lions on those whose opinions merely differed from our own, well...just imagine how that'd be.

I don't entirely disagree with what you said. It's naive to think that you can live on this planet without directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally, causing some deaths and disrupting some other lives. That would be pretty much an impossible goal. And human overpopulation is a very serious matter.

I understand that if domestic farm animals were turned loose as wild animals, they wouldn't survive. What I imagine is that, if we reached the point of not needing to breed them at all, some people who just genuinely love the species would continue to do so and keep them as pets. People already do keep chickens, pigs, etc., that way. I figure that humans would feel too much nostalgic attachment to the species with which we've been so closely associated for so long, to simply let them fall into extinction. At least not for quite a long while more. That's hypothetical, of course. And YES, I saw on the news that a $300,000 burger was developed from cow stem cells, and received almost surprisingly positive reviews from the taste-test panel. Certainly the cost per patty needs to be drastically reduced with further work, but I'd LOVE to try one.

I'm also aware that animals can be killed in nature for reasons other than being eaten; but sustenance is the primary cause, and humans do the most totally unnecessary killing. And torturing. If I have a choice, why would I *not* prefer to contribute to it as little as possible? Maximize the good, minimize the bad...

Plus, when has anyone EVER become less healthy thanks to vegetarianism/veganism?? The less meat and fewer animal products, the better. Flesh consumption's linked to specific problems, but nothing good. It seems to just kind of be accepted as "normal," and unquestioned. I've never heard anything but glowing, "I-have-never-been-healthier-in-my-life" praise for the decision from people who've gone veggie for any amount of time.

"If you don't have anything nice to say...come sit by me!"

[–] Augustus_Octavian 8 years ago

Because they taste good... That is why.

[–] PopSixSquish 8 years ago

So do other humans, I'll bet. 6-; Maybe cannibalism would make me happy...guess I oughta go take it up, then! 😄😍

[–] Augustus_Octavian 8 years ago

Other humans have guns, or their protectors do. You can give it a try though, I guess. Report back if you succeed.

[–] PopSixSquish 8 years ago

Will do.
(No but on a more serious note, another creature not having a gun/means of effective defense against me doesn't make it okay for me to harm or kill said creature simply because I for some reason feel like doing so. Killing for pleasure? 😦)

[–] Augustus_Octavian 8 years ago

Your question was why would you (implicitly people in general) want to eat meat. I am giving you the honest simple and straightforward answer. Because it tastes good. Duh.

Morality is a separate question. Obviously, if you believe in the concept of animal rights, then meat eating would be moral only under very limited constraints. Such as super-premium free-range organic meat that has been massaged by Tibetan monks and given a nightly blowjob.

[–] PopSixSquish 8 years ago

Ah. Well, that must've been last year. Obviously I'm aware that most find it tasty, but am not quite satisfied with that...especially since my veggie imitations are at least equally so. And of course I believe in animal rights (how could I possibly not? Being an animal myself, after all.) When I started to actually think about this, I became pretty disgusted and less able to ignore the moral question--especially looking at it raw. A pleasant flavor when cooked just didn't seem a great justification for such extravagant and unnecessary wastes of land, resources, and lives. Now, if they can start growing those burgers from cow stem cells or whatever that breakthrough was for a fraction of the price (say, $3 a patty instead of $300?), then I shall be intrigued...so long as they're reasonably healthy, that is.

[–] Augustus_Octavian 8 years ago

Do you like massive electro-shocks to your balls while having sex? I don't. Some do. It does not matter whether you prefer the taste yourself, the super majority of humans do.

Animals rights, as a term, excludes humans although humans are technically animals. But you are already aware of this...

I accept the costs involved in producing the meat, since it is so tasty. In any case, industrial scale factory farming gives consumers a cheap and tasty product. It is cruelty-free free-range farming that is exorbitant, and I myself have not ever paid for such products before. I assure you most consumers do not care, despite their mild vocal proclamations otherwise.

[–] PopSixSquish 8 years ago

Sure, but as I said, I think the moral question far outweighs "Do you like the taste?" 😑 And yes, of course the concept of "animal rights" refers to nonhuman species, but again...I'd find it positively inhuman and inhumane to imagine one's own species to conveniently be the only one with the right to live free of cruelty. Karma, man.
People do care--not just about themselves and their fellow beings, but about their very world. Everyone doesn't need to go vegan tomorrow; small, positive steps make a big difference. A lot of people, sadly, seem to lack the time and money to improve their diets, even though they'd probably like to do so were they informed and enabled. I could and will never support large-scale factory farming--at most the smaller, far healthier, cleaner, more humane "family farm" organic types. Only if I could invent a machine that translates the livestock's thoughts on the matter into English and received confirmation that they "accept the costs," could I do so that easily. 😌

[–] Augustus_Octavian 8 years ago

Their views do not matter, since they are not humans and cannot vote, much less carry firearms to enforce their views. While the views of their human supporters do matter, they are grossly outnumbered and hence matter little.

As for the moral aspects, I think the will of the people is clear. And it is that we don't care. Like it or dislike it, I think you can easily see this. If we care, would we support factory farming so eagerly with our wallets? We are well informed, and having considered the issues at hand, have come to a conclusion. We, the people, don't care.

That is the problem with activists. They think that if people really understood the issues, that they would support the activists. I honestly do not give a *beep* about the Africans in Africa. They can all die, for all I care. I am not giving a penny for the food aid, so the activist can stop waving the tin can in my face.

I personally do not support animal rights, so I am personally consistent and am not a hypocrite.

[–] PopSixSquish 8 years ago

...Wow. Well. Um. Okay. Agree to disagree, perhaps. It's difficult to tell whether this is trolling or not, because I'm sure you could well be for real.
Every life matters, not just those "lucky" enough to have been born into a body of the Homo sapiens variety. I can't speak for those who can afford nothing better, but demand for organic, free-range, antibiotic-free, locally-grown/raised, fairly priced, etc., etc., products is booming. If enough of "the people" really don't care, then I hope they have a terrific time and enjoy eventually running themselves into extinction. However, the little-by-little trends of today provide reason for greater optimism. Anyway, I've always imagined that if I were a farmer, I'd either not raise food animals, or simply wait 'til they died (how long does a cow or pig live, anyhow?) and then immediately sell the meat/products. Not from anything that died of disease, obviously. 😜

[–] Augustus_Octavian 8 years ago

Hmm. Yea. Probably am not going to be this honest and blunt in real life, since you will come off as heartless. But since this is the internet and all.

Super-premium cruelty-free meat is booming relative to its historical trend (of zero production), but relative to industrial scale factory meat, it is negligible. A mere rounding error. You can hardly claim support when the super majority of consumers actively oppose you with their wallets. People don't give a *beep* otherwise it would be factory meat that is negligible. They will happily mouth slogans during the surveys though. :)

You are wrong to claim that these people will cause their own extinction. Cruelty-free meat is what is unsustainable, not cruelty meat which is highly efficient and mass-produced. If you care about the environment and you *must* have meat, then cruelty is important since it produces massive economies of scale.

[–] PopSixSquish 8 years ago

Yeah, anonymity does tend to encourage that...heheh.
The demand and production continuously expands, though. When mass-production involves cruelty, ill-treated animals living in unsanitary conditions, and the need for so much land, water, animal-feed production, pollution......there is no way that's sustainable, or defensible, or healthy and good for anyone. 😟 Maybe in the short term, for the owners of the companies selling meat produced in that manner, but that's it. Any reduction in the resources guzzled by meat-making is good, and contributes to the ability to just directly feed humans.

https://www.morningstarfarms.com/about.html
https://www.morningstarfarms.com/veg-of-allegiance.html

[–] Augustus_Octavian 8 years ago

Demand is still near zero though, relatively speaking. You can hardly claim popular support just because your supporters goes from 2 (your mum and dad) to 4 (plus your 2 sisters). Most people don't give a *beep* if you can't have the honesty to accept this, that is a problem.

But cruelty-free meat is way worse for the environment. If your claim is that any meat production is bad for the environment, that is factually correct. Your claim is that cruelty meat is worse than cruelty-free meat. That is incorrect. Cruelty-free meat, by its very nature, raises animals in the laps of luxury that consumes incredible resources. That is hardly environmentally friendly. IT is way friendlier for cruelty meat.

[–] PopSixSquish 8 years ago

Sounds insignificant when you think in those terms...but it's not just "my" parents or siblings or friend or whatever, it's his and hers and theirs and so on exponentially. I mean, I *see* your point, but I also think we're more or less generally moving in the right direction; progress just usually moves at a snail's pace. But move it does.

I don't personally love the idea of raising animals for slaughter, but if it must be done, the only really acceptable method I can imagine is smaller-scale...humane, clean/healthy (none of the steroids, hormones, antibiotics, chemicals, whatever), not overproduced, more simple and natural. Farm animals don't demand the "lap of luxury"; they have simple needs. The least a farmer can do is allow them a nice life before they become whichever product(s) s/he ultimately needs them for. I don't believe they need to or should be bred in the quantities they are.

[–] Augustus_Octavian 8 years ago

It is indeed moving in the direction which aligns with your view, but as we both agree, your actual political supporters are negligible as a percentage of the population. The rest are just mouthing the slogans, but will not agree to put up any money. Basically, hypocrites considering that almost all meat consumption is unnecessary.

Which is the laps of luxury for animals. And highly environmentally unfriendly. For a given quantity (whether it is 100k, or one trillion chickens), cruelty meat is always more friendly than cruelty-free meat because it is way more efficient in terms of resource consumption. That is the whole point of factory farming, economies of scale. At the price of cruelty, of course. 😃

[–] PopSixSquish 8 years ago

I would like to be able to find out actual numbers (of people reducing their dependence on animal products and by how much)--but again, at least statistics such as those cited by Morningstar to promote their veggie products make me feel preeeetty reasonably good about the matter overall.

I'm also not...really seeing the logic there, because how does being cruel consume fewer resources than being humane? Other than for giving the livestock a fair amount of living space. I actually have a vacation home in rural Pennsylvania that's surrounded by hundreds of acres of farmland; lots of cows, horses, fields for different crops, etc. Those folks are certainly friendlier than someone who'd pack all these animals into some dingy, stuffy, cramped building, and keep them confined until it's time to kill them. If forced to choose, I'd much rather support one of those "idyllic, picturesque" farms where I can see that the animals have lived the kinds of lives they'd prefer before being slaughtered as quickly/painlessly as possible. How could I ever prefer buying the remains of something that had lived a horrible, miserable, and wholly unnatural excuse for an existence? 😱

I mean, sure, I'd support turning over most or much (maybe even all) of the land dedicated to animal-farming to growing more plants directly for humans...but as noted...who knows how long the less-meat or healthier-meat trend would have to continue to see very noticeable differences? Which brings me back to the stem-cell burgers--if only meat could be grown like plants. 😛

[–] Augustus_Octavian 8 years ago

It is pretty negligible.

Er... yes? Even with the technology of factory farming, meat production still consumes 30% of global land. If you revert back to ancient technology and provide such an lavish environment, I can easily see the per capita land usage going up by 1000% to 10 000%. Even with demand being cut by 50% by the incredible prices, that would still wipe out the environment.

[–] PopSixSquish 8 years ago

Errrm. Okay, so...optimally we could aim to a) eliminate factory farming (or more precisely, eliminate cruelty and abuse), and b) continue to support the small farms/free-range/organic/whatever stuff while still c) further reducing purchases of meat......sounds like a pipe dream in practical terms, perhaps, but there's no reason at all for me and untold millions of others to stop doing B & C. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ They bring only good. It's like the kid tossing the starfish back in the sea one by one; the difference one person can make via their choices may be small, but it always matters, and good deeds add up. ✌

[–] Augustus_Octavian 8 years ago

You can advocate for whatever you wish, as is your right. I am merely pointing out that cruelty-free meat is highly damaging to the environment, and that in current practical terms, animal welfare and the environment are mutually exclusive. What is good for animal welfare is bad for the environment.

Unless, of course, you stop eating meat altogether.

[–] PopSixSquish 8 years ago

...Well, I will continue to support both the animals and the healthy environment necessary for their welfare as well as ours. =] 🌎🐖🐄

[–] Augustus_Octavian 8 years ago

Ok. That is nice of you.

Not going to follow suit though. Gonna bite into a nice juicy steak. You are one of the good vegans though, i.e. not an *beep* Haha.

[–] PopSixSquish 8 years ago

Well, I hardly think that belligerence and argumentativeness are the best way to share one's viewpoints. 😏
Obviously we'd appreciate your giving it a shot--not even full veganism or vegetarianism, but maybe, y'know, replacing one or two meat entrees a week with substitutes. People can't be forced to do that, of course, but I can say that I'm one who's found it rewarding. 👍

[–] Augustus_Octavian 8 years ago

It is because these vegans are natural *beep* not because they actually think it is helpful to their causes. I find that most activists are *beep* by nature, that is why they are activists. After all, if they do not find it such an overwhelming passion that merits them being *beep* why would they become activists?

Nah. Full meat all the way for me.

[–] PopSixSquish 8 years ago

I don't doubt that many people do take up with worthwhile, charitable causes simply due to the opportunity it affords them to pick fights, shout, feel superior and look down on others, etc. In fact, that's pretty common, unfortunately; you encounter it all the time...people who aren't happy without something to be unhappy and rant about. Part of their personality. D;
It's all well and good to stand up passionately for your beliefs and feel anger or outrage toward injustice--but again, you do your case no favors at all by taking the "pugnacious @$$hole" approach. Isn't "calm and reasonable" less likely to drive people off before they've really even started listening to what you're saying? I dunno, seems logical to me.

😰

[–] Augustus_Octavian 8 years ago

Yea, that is why I assume activists are *beep* unless there is evidence otherwise. Guilty until proven innocent when it comes to activists.

Me? I leave others alone and expect others to leave me be as well, for the most part.

[–] PopSixSquish 8 years ago

Mm, I like to live and let live, and generally give people the benefit of the doubt until I run out of reason to doubt their total a-hole-ness.

[–] Augustus_Octavian 8 years ago

Because we want to, and derive pleasure from the act thereof.

Duh. As an adult, is that something that is so difficult to understand? The notion that human beings do something that makes them happy? And in a democracy, and many other forms of governance, attempting to defy the strong will of the people is not that feasible.

[–] hppg 10 years ago

I agree, but I think we're gonna need this http://www.flickr.com/photos/smiteme/4170866438/

[–] Blathnat69 10 years ago

Spoken like a true Vegan.

Do you think these animals would even exist if we weren't killing them for things such as food or materials? Somehow I don't think cows or chickens would be around.

You know what else causes cancer? Just about everything. There are many plant products that cause heart disease as well, particularly as the Human body is more adapted to processing animal fats than it is plant fats. In fact, generally speaking, someone who eats meat products is going to be far healthier than a vegetarian/vegan/fruitarian/breathearian assuming their environmental factors are the same.

Biologically, we have FAR more in common with carnivores and omnivores (in fact, our teeth are amazing similar to those of bears and pigs). We have developed teeth used for ripping flesh, as well as for eating plant materials. Our gastric system, and more specifically the gastric bacteria, is evolutionarily designed to consume both plant and animal matter.

Yes, the eating of animal flesh is dated. In fact it is highly regarded amongst very reputable scientists that consuming red meat allowed our brains and bodies to adjust and evolve beyond monkeys. Many of the proteins and amino acids found in animal products have been linked to increased brain size.

No, we are not babies, nor calves, however I find it very difficult to believe that calves are dying because we drink the milk of cows. Milking cows are bred specifically to produce large quantities of milk, and are often not permitted to breed. The milk that these cows produce is very different from the colostrum produced by a weaning mother. Statistics will show that as a result of farming/milking, there are now more cows on this planet than ever before.

Sorry, but no rational adult can ignore the scientific facts that meat has great benefits.

If you aren't replying to my post, don't click "reply".

[–] Danae_G 10 years ago

Do you think these animals would even exist if we weren't killing them for things such as food or materials? Somehow I don't think cows or chickens would be around.

Oh yes, humans are GREAT for animal conservation. That's why approximately 10,000 species become extinct each year because of our greed and destruction. Yes, farming animals causes an immense overpopulation, but if we were to stop farming, nature would take its intended course and everything would level out as it is supposed to.

Please provide proof that meat-eaters are healthier than vegans. It is a proven fact that vegan diets tend to be higher in dietary fibre, magnesium, folic acid, vitamin C, vitamin E, iron and phytochemicals, and lower in calories, saturated fat, cholesterol, long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin D, calcium, zinc and vitamin B12. Vitamin D, calcium, zinc and B12 requirements can, however, easily be met. What factors usually lead to heart disease? Eating foods high in calories, saturated fat and cholesterol.

Yep, we can consume both plant and animal matter, so long as the animal matter is cooked and seasoned to perfection. And we all know how grossed out most of us are at the sheer thought of eating raw meat, blood, eyeballs, hair and organs. But that's what REAL meat-eaters do. Place a one-year-old child in a crib with a bunny rabbit and a bowl of fruit. If the child instinctively rips the bunny to shreds and consumed its flesh, blood and organs, your point is proven. If the child plays with the rabbit and eats the fruit, well, what does that indicate?

There are plenty of animals on this earth that eat nothing but protein-heavy foods (carnivores) and their brain sizes aren't looking too flash.

Cows on dairy farms are forcefully inseminated every year in order to give birth to more babies so they can continue to produce milk. A female calf will be taken immediately from her mother and will also become a victim of forced insemination. A male calf, on the other hand, is useless to a dairy farmer and will be killed or sent away to be slaughtered at a dairy farm, all so humans can drink the milk that was intended for these slaughtered children. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWM5jYORSDg

[–] cryptobat 10 years ago

Actually they have to breed dairy cows every few years to keep the milk good otherwise it goes salty.

At least according to the dairy farmer I chatted to a few weeks ago. :P

[–] TwinOfOne 10 years ago

you are not a baby and you are not a calf!

Damn right I'm not! I'm a... rabbit?

[–] zeio-4 10 years ago

Take your stupid views and cram them where the sun dont shine.

I could turn you into a meat eater in 3 days on a raft in the pacific or on a deserted island, you'll starve or eat meat. You going to go Vegan on a Kon Tiki raft? PFFFT.

Stop being a tool and eructating all this rubbish. Eating a survival skill.

[–] Danae_G 10 years ago

I could turn you into a meat eater in 3 days on a raft in the pacific or on a deserted island, you'll starve or eat meat. You going to go Vegan on a Kon Tiki raft? PFFFT.

Stop being a tool and eructating all this rubbish. Eating a survival skill.

And how many of us are living on a deserted island or stranded on a raft in the middle of the Pacific ocean? Extremely few to none. How many of us are living in an extremely privileged society packed full of cheap and easily accessible food options? Certainly you, and almost certainly the rest of us. Eating isn't a survival skill for the majority of Western society, it's a hobby fueled by greed. And that greed comes at the cost of the lives of billions of innocent beings every year.

[–] Augustus_Octavian 8 years ago

And we are fine with this. Seriously. You are part of the 2%.

[–] gettinmygrooveon 10 years ago

I eat meat but I realize it's wrong on many levels.

Physiologically our intestines are too long to eat meat so it stagnates in our system. Real carnivores have much shorter intestines to evacuate it quickly. To the guy who said we have carnivorous teeth...what a joke! I'd like to see him run up to a cow and try to bite through it, good luck!

Spiritually it's pretty obvious eating meat is wrong. Albert Einstein and Benjamin Franklin, two heroes of mine, also realized it was wrong to eat animals. If you need some perspective then imagine the following scenario: Aliens land on the planet and start farming and eating humans. Would it be okay since they have a superior intellect?

I suspect a lot of the pro meat eaters think God created us a few thousand years ago and created the animals to feed us. Don't fear evolution.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]